JohnSelf Reviews

In Bruges (2008)

Lives up to the title

[8/10 · 21 June 2008]

Fantastic. If it were just a movie that had great shots of Brugge, that would be enough. But it also has a great story that is hard to predict where it will go. At the beginning of the movie I thought to myself it could well do without Colin Farrell, but by the end he had won me over. I particularly liked the bit about the guy not letting Brendan G's character into the tower because he was short 0.10. I lived in Belgium for 2 years and this is absolutely what they would do - most uptight people I've ever encountered in my life. (I actually got kicked off a train in Brugge because my train pass had been improperly stamped. Mind you, I'm not the one that did the stamping.)

Brugge is one of the most spectacularly beautiful cities I've ever been to and this film does it justice with it's cinematography and storyline. This isn't a life changing movie, but it is an extremely good indie film that should not be missed.

I full well realize this is a shite review, but that should NOT dissuade you from seeing this movie if you have any interest.

Sleeper Cell (2005–2006)

Too real my a$$

[6/10 · 28 July 2007]

The story itself is interesting, but is it representative of terrorists? I think not. Find just one Islamic terrorist attack that involved three westerners. There aren't any.

The show is good from a dramatic point of view, but it is in no way "realistic". It's about as true to life as 24. But, like Kiefer does on 24, the actors on here are quite good. It reeks of too much handling from producers - you can almost hear the pitch meeting "we can't just have a bunch of arabs. People need to identify with these characters. And we need a love interest." Very formulaic. Obviously a lot of time and money has been spent on this and it's very watchable, but ...

HBO would have kept it truer to form. For instance, I am quite curious about the Indonesian character. If you've ever been to Indonesia, he looks about as Indonesian as an Eskimo. Would it have been that hard to find an actor from Jakarta?

Big Love (2006–2011)

Good, but...

[7/10 · 4 July 2007]

This show is very well written (to an extent), executed and acted. I appreciate the complexities of the dialogue and plot lines, but there is an inherent creepiness that I have trouble with. All the religious mumbo jumbo is hard to watch - especially against the hypocrisy of religious fanatics who have multiple wives. I know that's part of the point - part of the dynamic of the show, but still. One thing I don't get and I don't think is adequately explained is why would someone want more than one wife. The financial and other burdens are enormous, as the show illustrates. There are allusions to religious reasons, but that's about as far as it goes.

What is the upside? What would compel someone to do this? What is the motivation? What is the motivation for these women to enter into such an arrangement? These things go largely unexplored. What sane person would say I would like to buy three houses all in a row, make them a compound, have three wives (and then find three women willing to do this), have a bus load of children, and then spend most of my life trying to cover this up?? There certainly must be some serious mental disorders that accompany such behavior, but this is never addressed.

Ultimately, the "good" guys on the show are as despicable as the bad guys. With the Sopranos there is some acknowledgment of the hypocrisy they are living, here there isn't. It's incredulous.

I suppose that's part of the point - inject audacity - but even though the show is extremely well done because of the strange life style it is often difficult to identify with the characters. And it's not just because it's an "alternative" lifestyle, it's the hypocrisy of it.

On a completely different note, how could someone (the flaneuer post below) mistake this for a movie with an ending!

Casino Royale (2006)

wtf

[7/10 · 2 April 2007]

I normally am mildly entertained by Bond movies. This one was much better. One thing I'm very curious about is why people have left numerous references in the trivia section about license plate numbers. Who cares if James Bond license plate reads 3430473 unless it has some relevance? Personally, I don't give a sh*t and find it more than a bit annoying. It's not trivia - it's irrelevant.

Now that I've got my rant about "trivia" out of the way I would say this is the most enjoyable Bond film I've seen. In my view there is considerable more depth than usual. I would imagine this is not something that would appeal to die-hard Bond fanatics, but those who normally wouldn't watch should give it a try.

Weeds (2005–2012)

Not bad

[17 February 2006]

A decent enough show, but the writing is not as smart as "Six Feet Under" or "The Sopranos". It just doesn't suck me in like those shows, but it's much better than most things on TV. One thing that drives me nuts is the opening song (the other music is quite good). But that initial song sticks in my mind for days after I hear it. I can hear it now "...little boxes..." - they should use it down in Guantanamo.

Another thing that strikes me is that it the show is vaguely depressing. I like dark comedies along the lines of "American Beauty" or "About Schmidt", but I find them more amusing than depressing. There are some good lines in Weeds(eg, buying pot from Laura Bush at SMU), but it doesn't seem as consistently funny as Tony Soprano. Maybe it seems a bit more serious. Maybe it's that insipid song. It's certainly not because I have a problem with a drug themed show or any other issues raised. Unlike most people, the character development seems a bit lacking to me.

Crash (I) (2004)

The emperor has no clothes

[6/10 · 29 January 2006]

Decent enough film, but I do not understand all the adoration being heaped upon it. The acting was good. Scenes were well shot. But the screen play? Maybe my expectations were too high going in to it? You would have to have an IQ in the low 70's to miss the message. Subtle it is not. In fact, everything is SO obvious it's a bit cringe inducing. Racism does exist in America, but it is decidedly more subtle than it was in the 50's and 60's.

This thing is so heavy handed and over the top with everything it made it a bit hard for me to watch. It serves up the complex issue of racism with all the finesse of a "Brady Bunch" or "Leave it to Beaver" episode - ham fisted morality is shoved down your throat ... and it made me gag. But I suppose it shouldn't be surprising, that in the age where Michael Moore and FOX News attract all kinds of viewers, people lap this up. In an unintended way, it's a sad commentary on American society that something so obvious and shallow has garnered such accolades.

The script sounds like Haggis took a social studies report from his 10 year old daughter, polished it up and turned it into a movie. We get it. People are bad and good (except for Hispanic locksmiths). Haggis should have spent time watching "Traffic". The drug problem is equally complex, but Soderbergh didn't deal with it by using cardboard cutout characters and hackneyed dialogue.

If after watching this movie you feel you've gleaned some sort of "insight" into racial problems in the US, I suggest you find a shovel, a friend and then proceed to have your friend whack you in the head with that shovel. This movie is a mosaic of caricatures that most anyone could identify by the time they are eight years old.

The Boondock Saints (1999)

A movie for "igiots"

[1/10 · 30 December 2005]

I'm not sure what an "igiot" is. Perhaps, some Irish idiom, but I'm guessing it's more likely an idiot who can't type (see below).

I tend to only write about movies I love or I hate and I hated this one. Actually I feel sort of cheated. I rented this movie based on the IMDb rating, which more often than not is reliable. I'm not sure what happened here. I like Willem Dafoe and he doesn't do a bad job; but my God there are a litany of unbelievable events that make this thing pretty tedious to watch. It's not the acting that is bad - it's that the plot is chocked full of gaping holes in logic. And, movies don't have to be completely logical for me to like them, but at least they should make sense within the storyline.

I am curious who these people are that liked this thing. Movies like Armageddon and Godzilla have more cogent stories. Are there that many victims of lobotomies running around? I suggest if your synapses are firing normally stay away from this piece of offal. But,if you like this check out "The Cube," "The Forgotten," "Changing Lanes" and "The Last Castle" - four other similarly inane movies. "Boondock Saints" is stupid beyond belief.

The Yes Men (2003)

Unintelligent satire that may amuse the ignorant

[3/10 · 15 April 2005]

I was impressed with the elaborate pranks and that they were able to at least look like they were giving competent presentations. That was it. The rest of it was fairly stupid.

One of the first big jokes centers around a presentation made in Finland about a ridiculous phallic employee monitoring device. I suppose we were supposed to find humor in the fact that the Finns failed to react. I think it showed more about the ignorance and stupidity of the Yes Men than the audience.

Even if they hadn't pulled out the giant penis thing, I'm sure the audience wouldn't have asked any questions about the WTO's plan to monitor employees. No doubt the audience knew that the WTO would never become involved in something like that, and I can imagine it would be fairly typical for a group of Europeans to remain quiet about an American making an ass of himself in public. The most frustrating thing I found was that all the pranks that were meant to satire the WTO missed the mark completely.

The Yes Men seemed to be completely uninformed about what the WTO does. I'm not sure how you can satirize something if you don't understand it. It would be sort of like making "Spinal Tap" based upon lives of circus performers. The WTO simply doesn't become involved in individual corporations, like McDonald's. So, while the idea of reconstituted feces being sold as food may be slightly amusing, it's irrelevant to the operations of the WTO, which is problematic if you're trying to poke fun at the them.

In general, it's pretty much run-of-the-mill uninformed arguments you usually hear from people that denounce organizations like the World Bank or IMF with some pranks thrown in to entertain. Knee jerk liberalism with a twist, in other words. Which in my book, is equally as asinine as those that buy whatever FOX News or W is selling. On the plus side, if you don't know anything about the WTO or other cultures, you might find this amusing.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004)

You either get it or you don't

[3/10 · 18 February 2005]

I didn't get it, which is surprising because normally I like movies like this. I like stupid humor. I like comedies that have a tinge of depression. Most of my friends found it hilarious. I didn't. I suppose the best analogy I can make is that I loved "About Schmidt" (and the odd Adam Sandler movie), but can very well understand why someone wouldn't find them amusing.

I sat through this thing bored stiff - didn't laugh a single time - not even a chuckle, but I kept thinking if I was of a slightly different mind set I would have thought it hilarious.

It's a tough call, but I would think if you have some interest in seeing this movie go ahead. I thought it was mind numbingly boring, but I can almost see why others are massively entertained. In other words, I don't think it was poorly done. I just wasn't in on the joke. You might be.

The Human Stain (2003)

What a piece of shite

[3/10 · 3 February 2005]

If you're looking for a well told story, look elsewhere. It has good production value and the acting is believable within the constraints of the screenplay. But, inept writing and direction make for a rather silly movie. Unlike other reviewers, I didn't have a problem believing Anthony Hopkins was an African American. What I did have a problem with was the ridiculous conversations and bizarre interactions the characters had. It is a novel idea to have an African American living as a white man in the US. So much could be done with it and maybe it was in Philip Roth's novel. Here it was not. Nothing rang true.

Take for instance the rather innocuous scene where Coleman meets Zuckerman. Coleman just barges into Zuckerman's cottage in the woods and starts rambling on and on about his problems and the book Zuckerman could write about them. There's no "what the f**k?" reaction (eg, who are you, what are you talking about, what are you doing IN MY HOUSE, etc.) from Zuckerman. He makes a few perfunctory comments and then they become best friends. It makes no sense. The whole movie is like this. Incredibly emotional ranting and raving is sprung upon characters and they don't react. I found it strange. There are many better movies out there, which is too bad because with these actors, a better screenplay, and smart direction this one could have been very interesting.

The Forgotten (2004)

Awful, awful, awful

[1/10 · 23 January 2005]

I like these kinds of movies - conspiracy, aliens, etc. - but, this is bad, almost unintentionally funny. It has good production, but even within the strange realm of alien abductions it makes no sense. I suppose if you can buy into the Kleenex thin logic then you would like it. There are some threads of a good film in there somewhere. But, I'm just guessing, the good idea did not translate from page to screen. Not just that, but it went horribly wrong. It's too bad, because normally I cut films like this quite a bit of leeway. Implausibility is part of the genre, but this thing makes no sense. Stay away! Besides "The Cube", this is one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Literally. Bad beyond description.

Collateral (2004)

Good, but not quite up to snuff for Michael Mann

[7/10 · 17 December 2004]

I heard the plot outline and thought to myself this doesn't have the makings for a good movie. Why would a hit man choose a cabbie to drive him around? Why would this be interesting? But, I had similar thoughts before seeing "The Insider" - why would a movie about a corporate whistle blower be interesting. Now, "The Insider", along with "Heat", "The Last of the Mohicans", and "Manhunter" are some of my favorite movies.

After seeing Collateral, I surprisingly really didn't have a problem with the issue of why a hit-man would have a cabbie drive him around from hit to hit. But, it didn't live up to other Michael Mann movies that I love. It seemed like a long version of an RHD episode.

If you want an entertaining movie, this will suffice. If you want Michael Mann at the top of his form, this isn't it.

The Fog of War (2003)

"What makes us omniscient? ...

[10/10 · 22 August 2004]

"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? We are the strongest nation in the world today. I do not believe that we should ever apply economic, political, or military power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule in Viet Nam, we wouldn't have been there. None of our allies supported us. Not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we better re-examine our reason."

Robert McNamara – `The Fog of War'

As Farenheit 9/11 has pushed itself to the forefront of the documentary world, I'm inclined to think that quotes like these make this documentary much more timely. It is certainly much more thoughtful and balanced than anything Michael Moore would produce. I suppose the drawback (and strength) is it is less of an entertainment - much more insight - which will probably translate into a much smaller audience.

It truly is an extraordinary glimpse into the life of someone who played a large role in shaping late 20th century history. McNamara comes across as a remarkably sharp (irrespective of his age), thoughtful and flawed man that recognizes the errors of some of his decisions, but seems to genuinely engage in some difficult exercises of self criticism.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

Entertaining, but not particularly edifying

[8/10 · 4 September 2003]

Michael Moore wouldn't know a cogent argument if it bit him on the ass, which is becoming an increasingly large target. Or maybe I'm not giving him enough credit. Perhaps, he could recognize such an argument if he chose to, but chooses not to. Certainly there must be documentaries that offer more carefully constructed assessments of the US gun problem, but I'm sure they are not as entertaining or popular.

Mr. Moore has much more in common with Ann Coulter and Howard Stern than he does with anti-gun people. He's got an ear, and an eye, for impact. Facts, and other objective criteria, are not a particular priority. I'm conflicted with this. On the one hand, I think it's great that this documentary apparently hit a nerve with the general populace about the gun problem in the US. I also tend to agree most of the time with the stance Michael Moore takes, but almost invariably find myself shaking my head at the logic (or lack thereof) he uses to get there.

This film does make some good points. It's entertaining. But, it does need to be watched with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Cube (1997)

Wow, this is a bad, bad movie!

[1/10 · 24 July 2003]

I suppose somewhere in the middle of piece of trash there is actually a good idea for a movie. I watch a lot of movies and generally the IMDb average vote is a pretty good indicator if it is good or not. I don't know what happened here. I guess this is a cult movie for those with awful taste. I don't know if I've ever seen something with worse acting - no one is believable at all. I don't think I could discourage watching this movie strongly enough.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Brilliant

[10/10 · 16 July 2003]

Judging from some of the other reviews posted here, there are people that actually dislike this movie. I suppose the violence and drug use might turn some people off, but that is absolutely not what this movie is about. The dialogue just crackles in this movie. Almost every scene is pitch perfect - Christopher Walken's watch delivery speech, that opening discussion about buying drugs in Amsterdam, etc. It is really sad that there are people that don't like this movie. I feel sorry for them, but at the same time am very glad I don't know them.

Bandits (2001)

Loved it, but you might not

[8/10 · 4 June 2003]

I loved this movie, but am hard pressed to say exactly why. As other people have noted, it does kind of meander and dabbles in a number of different plot points without actually deciding on one direction. Ultimately, I think it is a hyper-realistic romantic-caper-comedy that you either buy into or you don't. Judging from the number of negative reviews it is quite hard for most viewers to immerse themselves into this world - it seems to have quite a contrived quality to many. For me, on the other hand, it worked. I thought Billy Bob was hilarious, Cate Blanchett was excellent, and that they along with Bruce Willis worked great together.

Hearts and Minds (1974)

A Must See Film on Viet Nam

[10/10 · 3 January 2003]

This is one of the better documentaries I've seen. It is a very jarring commentary on one of the biggest (or at least most visible) failures in US foreign policy. It does a great job illustrating how ignorant US policy makers and those that executed those policies turned Viet Nam into such a tragic situation. And how that ignorance served only to destroy a country that we were ostensibly trying to help. As an earlier review noted, this is not an objective documentary. (I personally did not realize that documentaries needed to be objective.) It does not, however, contain any commentary from the filmakers. It paints a vivid picture by contrasting footage from Americans and Vietnamese. **possible spoiler**

For example, it made me sick to watch General Westmoreland mumble that the Oriental does not appreciate life like Westerners, which was interspersed with bombing footage and Vietnamese grieving for loved ones. Another astute observation from a soldier is that Vietnam was a nice country except for the people.

The film is peppered with inane observations and comments from US war participants that leave little doubt as to why this evolved into such a tragic situation.

Hurlyburly (1998)

Don't take it literally

[8/10 · 7 May 2002]

This was an incredibly interesting movie. Besides an exceptional cast, the dialogue is sharp and witty and there are some very intriguing issues raised. However, it seems that these positive points are lost on most viewers. My guess is it's because you cannot remain a passive viewer or an idiot and expect to find any redeeming qualities in this movie. On the surface, Hurlyburly is populated by extremely unsympathetic characters that become more debased as the movie progresses. Eddie (Penn) provides the central thrust of the movie. Eddie is also almost continually snorting coke that fuels extended often seemingly disjointed dialogue. But most of the meaning is lost and the movie can become a bit tedious if you take this dialogue literally. The drugs and depravity serve to create a plausible environment for the expression of a much greater range of thoughts and emotions. It would be hard to swallow Eddie's neurosis and paranoia if he wasn't high all the time. And, Eddie's drug addled observations and frustrations are the glue of the movie. The drugs provide the writer with a device to verbalise many thoughts that normally would not be uttered aloud. More traditionally this type of problem might be solved by using a narrator. Eddie's problems and fears are not all that different from most people ... they are just extremely amplified.